Has The Population Bomb ... Fizzled ?

[WIP]

I think it's more than slight.

from this wiki page the annual growth rate fell from 2.2 to 1.2 per cent from 1963-64 to 2002.

What you don't get from just looking at some numbers on wiki page is context. Consider the fact that the present growth rates will double the world population in the next 50 years:

The median projection of population size by the U.N. Population Division envisions that population growth rates will decline over the coming several decades. But even if that median projection is achieved, the number of people expected to be added to the world’s population in the next 50 years will be almost as large as the number added in the last 50 years.

http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/

The other problem is population demographics. Most of the world does not have an aging population; in fact there almost half of world population (3 billion) are under 25. They are in, or will soon be in their prime reproductive years. And the fight against abortion and birth control carried out by the forces of conservatism, have caused a rebound in population growth rates in many developing nations. Nevertheless, the problem with becoming complacent of a decline in growth rates over the long term, as noted in the wiki article, is that they are still growing! It's like a reduction in the increase in deficits still increase the size of the debt.

And all of this is coming at a time when many ecologists and biologists believe that world population levels are already unsustainable. It is not really possible to unlink population size from economic growth, since developed nations with smaller populations, are using many times more resources than poor nations. The U.S. alone uses over a quarter of the planet's natural resources, while many developing nations such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly increasing their plundering of the earth and leaving ever larger carbon footprints. The most under-reported issue going on right now in global politics is the largely behind the scenes struggle between the U.S., European Union, China, and India to secure sources of oil and precious metals such as lithium, that are needed for economic growth to be sustained.

If the human race is to survive for more than the next 50 years, we need to return to the kind of economies we had before the last 150 years, when annual, year over year growth became a necessity.

[WIP]

How was biosphere 2 a failure? The experiment was carried out, people lived inside it at length, and much data was gathered about what worked and what remained a problem.

What didn't work most of all, was that they were never able to get control of atmospheric levels. Oxygen levels dropped dangerously low and had to be boosted so that the bionauts would survive, and carbon dioxide rose to dangerous levels before the closed experiments were scrapped. Sure, they had other problems with the crew, but they were never able to adequately explain why it was so much harder to maintain a stable atmosphere than originally envisioned. This was originally believed to be one of the easy problems...just add some plants and water, with a little sunlight, and voila! But it didn't quite work out that way. And this fundamental ignorance for how a biosphere functions is the most infuriating aspect of careless advocates of unbridled growth and plundering of resources on our biosphere.

[Michael Hardner]

If the human race is to survive for more than the next 50 years, we need to return to the kind of economies we had before the last 150 years, when annual, year over year growth became a necessity.

For the first part of your post - sure, I concede that population will still increase until population growth is zero. But people have to concede that growth is slowing, that birth control in the third world is starting to happen and that our focus needs to shift to sustainability in the first world.

That is starting to happen, but I'm not sure how a non-growth economy would look...

[ToadBrother]

actually Rome fell because of the nationalization of hundreds of thousands of north africans... or at lest the downfall followed the same time frame....

Look, we can play this game all day, but what you've written is so obnoxiously wrong as to be complete madness. Rome's fall came from the east and the north; not from the south. In fact, the Byzantines had a pretty good lock on Africa up until the rise of Islam. Africa was where some of its earliest colonies, particular after the PUnic Wars, were located, and was its bread basket for centuries. You really are an ignorant ass.

Have you even bothered reading an actual book of history? You write things like this, which are so obviously wrong to anyone with even the briefest familiarity with history. I guess that comes from being a racist, and needing to see everything based on race. But Rome won't help you there, it didn't fall because of Africans, it fell because major movements began on the Asian Steppe, pushing all sorts of populations westwards. Coupled with a system of government too often dominated by the military's top choice (usually factional choices), overextended in key areas like Britain and Mesopotamia, it was unable to weather the storm. Or rather a part of it was unable to, Byzantium surviving for quite some time afterwards, running a multi-ethnic empire that had everything from Ethiopians to Slavs under its sway.

[bebe]

Leadership that leads to economic growth and prosperity and raises the nation from being "underdeveloped" to the "developing" stage and then reaches "developed". My criticism of Chavez and why I'd say he's not a good leader is his socialist and authoritarian tendencies, which are unlikely to result in real economic prosperity in my estimation.

On that we differ, as I believe there is a better chance that all of the people of Venuzuela will benefit from their resources than there is in both "developing" and "developed" countries, where personal greed and private profit hold sway.

... but we digress from the topic of overpopulation, or lack thereof.

On that, I'm inclined to take the optimistic view espoused in the OP, because simple projections perhaps underestimate the power of women and birth control.

Edited July 19, 2010 by bebe

[Moonlight Graham]

A level playing field is not in the interests of the empire. In fact is contradicts it. Whats needed to make it work is lots of disadvantaged little people at the bottom, working hard and giving their all for the ones near the top. Kinda like an ant colony

Agreed. The harsh reality of capitalism and human selfishness.

[Moonlight Graham]

My criticism of Chavez and why I'd say he's not a good leader is his socialist and authoritarian tendencies, which are unlikely to result in real economic prosperity in my estimation.

Like China?

And you're right, maybe some of these developing countries should try cutting themselves off from the global economy. Who knows. Development is an insanely complex problem. Like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle missing a few pieces.

[Bonam]

Like China?

China's economy was a train wreck while it remained fully authoritarian and socialist. In recent decades, they have somewhat liberalized they're economy, and have begun to unlock China's vast potential. It is only to the extent that they have removed themselves from absolute control and socialism that they have begun to prosper. So yes, like China.

And you're right, maybe some of these developing countries should try cutting themselves off from the global economy. Who knows. Development is an insanely complex problem. Like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle missing a few pieces.

Jigsaw puzzles are pretty easy, however many pieces they may have. Not a good analogy. I agree that development is a complex problem. I do not know whether cutting themselves off would be a good move or not. But, if they believe, as you do, that they are being "raped" by foreign corporations, rather than benefiting from the presence of these corporations, then they certainly could take steps to remove them.

[Bonam]

Agreed. The harsh reality of capitalism and human selfishness.

What's so harsh about it? People work towards their own interest. Corporations and nations do the same. That is how humans are wired. The developing nations can and should do the same, look after their own best interests. Many have done so and have achieved prosperity. Asia has plenty of such examples.

[Moonlight Graham]

China's economy was a train wreck while it remained fully authoritarian and socialist. In recent decades, they have somewhat liberalized they're economy, and have begun to unlock China's vast potential. It is only to the extent that they have removed themselves from absolute control and socialism that they have begun to prosper. So yes, like China.

I agree. However, they are still authoritarian.

Some scholars and such argue that it isn't the kind of government that is most important for countries to develop (ie: authoritarian vs democratic etc.), but the stability of said governments and its ability to govern with strong institutions, rule of law etc. Would a democratic country with high corruption and a weak hold on the rule of law, bureaucratic control/effectiveness etc. be better than a more authoritarian government that is more effective at providing good governance and embedded autonomy for the country?

But, if they believe, as you do, that they are being "raped" by foreign corporations, rather than benefiting from the presence of these corporations, then they certainly could take steps to remove them.

Not only corporations, but rich countries in general through unbalanced trade agreements, terms of aid/loans, etc. etc. etc. I agree they are sovereign states and have the ability in most cases to do whatever they wish. What seems to occur is that developing countries agree to crappy/unfair/exploitative terms of relations thinking that the benefits still outweigh they costs of not agreeing to them at all and being cut off from trade/markets or aid etc.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

I agree. However, they are still authoritarian.

Some scholars and such argue that it isn't the kind of government that is most important for countries to develop (ie: authoritarian vs democratic etc.), but the stability of said governments and its ability to govern with strong institutions, rule of law etc. Would a democratic country with high corruption and a weak hold on the rule of law, bureaucratic control/effectiveness etc. be better than a more authoritarian government that is more effective at providing good governance and embedded autonomy for the country?

It is not so much the authoritarianism which hampers economic progress but the communism/socialism. I mentioned both factors before. Lawlessness is of course also a factor and you are right to bring it up. To answer your question, no a country that cannot provide rule of law will not enjoy prosperity. Providing the rule of law is the most fundamental and crucial role of government, without which a society cannot function to any meaningful degree.

What seems to occur is that developing countries agree to crappy/unfair/exploitative terms of relations thinking that the benefits still outweigh they costs of not agreeing to them at all and being cut off from trade/markets or aid etc.

Then the agreements are mutually beneficial, in the estimation of both parties. So what's the problem? If both parties, of their own free will, agree to a deal, that is just business and I see nothing wrong with it.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

What's so harsh about it? People work towards their own interest. Corporations and nations do the same. That is how humans are wired. The developing nations can and should do the same, look after their own best interests. Many have done so and have achieved prosperity. Asia has plenty of such examples.

Capitalism in its very nature creates classes that are rich at the top and classes that are poor at the bottom. And the more unregulated the market(s) is, it seems the wider the gap between the rich and the poor. It also seems that much of the wealth is concentrated within the hands of the few. This is true within countries between individual people, and among nations within the global capitalism economy. I don't see it as coincidence that most of the people and countries in the world live poor or meagerly compared to the small # of rich Western states. And i consider myself very fortunate to be a resident in one of the rich states!

[Bonam]

Capitalism in its very nature creates classes that are rich at the top and classes that are poor at the bottom.

This is true in any large scale human society ever attempted. In feudalism, you have the nobility. In communism, you have the party elite, which while they may not have more wealth, they have the power and influence usually associated with wealth. In capitalism, you have business owners and executives. In moderated socialism/capitalism (i.e. all existent western societies), you have both the party elite and the businessmen in these positions.

Now, which of these is preferable? In feudalism, richness is determined by birth. In communism, richness (power) is determined by political maneuvering into the higher echelons of a party. In capitalism, richness comes to those who make or oversee the making of products or services that people want to buy.

You aren't gonna escape the existence of classes, at least no major human civilization has yet accomplished this. What you can change is what gets rewarded. Capitalism, more than any other economic system, rewards work and accomplishment, rather than relying as much on birthright or political maneuvering.

In my view, this makes the capitalist system far superior to the alternatives.

And the more unregulated the market(s) is, it seems the wider the gap between the rich and the poor. It also seems that much of the wealth is concentrated within the hands of the few.

I disagree. Consider the US as an example. Throughout the 20th century and now the beginning of the 21st century, the inexorable trend has been greater and greater market regulation. The market is FAR more regulated now than it was 100 years ago. And, at the same time, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown; the wealth has become more concentrated. That is, market regulation did nothing to reduce this gap which so dismays you.

In fact, market regulation only adds more red tape and bureaucracy for people to have to sort through in order to be able to operate in that market. The cost and time of dealing with bureaucracy favors existing large corporations with lots of capital, which can afford dealing with these processes. Smaller enterprises cannot overcome the bureaucratic hurdles. I am personally very familiar with this as it comes to the aerospace and nuclear industries, which almost entirely shut out any newcomers and enshrine the eternal existence of established mega-corporations.

I don't see it as coincidence that most of the people and countries in the world live poor or meagerly compared to the small # of rich Western states.

Of course it isn't coincidence. Most Western nations took step to ensure their own prosperity. They did so more effectively and successfully than many other nations. Hence now they are more wealthy and more prosperous. Makes sense to me.

And i consider myself very fortunate to be a resident in one of the rich states!

For me it has little to do with fortune, and more to do with a conscious decision.

[WIP]

For the first part of your post - sure, I concede that population will still increase until population growth is zero. But people have to concede that growth is slowing, that birth control in the third world is starting to happen and that our focus needs to shift to sustainability in the first world.

Like I said, even if we take those numbers at face value, the world population will double within 50 years. Since there are so many young people in the developing world just entering their reproductive years, and at a time when reactionary conservative religious forces have weakened birth control programs in many poor, overpopulated countries, will double the pressure on available land, water and other natural resources. I have tried to get the point across elsewhere that the Earth isn't growing larger to accommodate our desires for population and economic growth. The only question remaining is whether the human race finds a way to gradually reduce its impact on the environment, or whether the limits get hid hard, and are followed by a crash that has occurred to isolated populations that overconsumed available resources -- such as the natives of Easter Island.

That is starting to happen, but I'm not sure how a non-growth economy would look...

There are people trying to find a way, since the alternative of continual growth, is a disaster in waiting on a finite planet:

Prosperity without growth? report pdf.

Edited July 20, 2010 by WIP

[Pliny]

there will still be 9 billion by mid century, far more than the earth's food resources can sustain

if I could remember where I read it I'd link to another article that speculates the planet will be down to 100 million in 100 years due to environmental collapse...

Bringing about an end to anthropogenic global warming. Isn't that wonderful?

[Jack Weber]

It is not so much the authoritarianism which hampers economic progress but the communism/socialism. I mentioned both factors before. Lawlessness is of course also a factor and you are right to bring it up. To answer your question, no a country that cannot provide rule of law will not enjoy prosperity. Providing the rule of law is the most fundamental and crucial role of government, without which a society cannot function to any meaningful degree.

Then the agreements are mutually beneficial, in the estimation of both parties. So what's the problem? If both parties, of their own free will, agree to a deal, that is just business and I see nothing wrong with it.

Wait a minute...

The first sentence is "interesting".You don't have a problem so much with authoritarianism,but extreme leftist authoritarianism...Hmmm...

I could make a serious case that the Chinese government,over the last 20 years,has successfully flipped from an authoritarian Communist,agrarian government to an authoritarian,quasi frre market,Fascist government.Chile did the same thing,albeit in an arguabley more violent fashion,under General Augusto Pinochet...

Are you saying extreme authoritarianism is OK as long as it's "free market" based?

[Bonam]

Wait a minute...

The first sentence is "interesting".You don't have a problem so much with authoritarianism,but extreme leftist authoritarianism...Hmmm...

I could make a serious case that the Chinese government,over the last 20 years,has successfully flipped from an authoritarian Communist,agrarian government to an authoritarian,quasi frre market,Fascist government.Chile did the same thing,albeit in an arguabley more violent fashion,under General Augusto Pinochet...

Are you saying extreme authoritarianism is OK as long as it's "free market" based?

No, you, as usual, misread my posts to see what you want to see rather than what I said. Just because I said something does not hamper economic growth as much, does not mean I am ok with it. I abhor authoritarianism, even though economic development is possible under it.